Natural Selection Debunked

I'm sure this video must have been discussed on here before but I couldn't find any threads under a search of the title, and if it hasn't been
discussed recently it's certainly worth raising again. I find the 'irreducibly complex' argument very convincing.

I think in 20 years we will laugh at the idea of 'life happening by accident' like we laugh at the idea of the earth being flat. I'm already
starting to find it quite amusing lol. Here's the documentary I came across, it is pretty scientific and well put together.

Here's the problem with the logic in the 'irreducibly complex' supposition. You cannot use it with 'creation' without including the 'creator'.
Since the 'creator' would also be 'irreducibly complex', then the 'creator' must also have been 'created', and it's 'creator', and so on,
and so on, and so on...

Thus you end up with an endless line of 'creators'. The logic of the 'watchmaker' analogy fails in this respect. Nice video (I've seen it
before), but poor logic!

Not necessarily and that goes for evolution as well. Did space always exist, if not how did it come into existence. I look at it this way. Time in
space doesn't flow in just one direction, therefore there wouldn't need to be a beginning or an end, weather it be a creator, who has always existed
or what ever you believe triggered the very first chain of events. one of those two things had to have always existed.

Atheist or Debunker or Pseudoscientist: There is more proof for evolution than Jesus.

Evangelical Christian: Repent or perish, infidel!

Agnostic: I believe that there is evidence of some intelligence in the design, but nothing that would support the two accounts in Genesis.

Moderate Christian or Spiritual Person: The universe is such a marvelous place filled with magic how can you see a sunrise or a baby chick scratching
at the dirt and not believe in God?

Everyone will begin to step up their game as the insults fly back and forth. All people who are spiritual to religious will be "idiots", all
atheists will be "anti-Christs" and God will turn into some horrible being, if it does exist, because there is war, disease, and suffering, ergo
there can be no God or it would have fixed it and even if it does not exist someone will NOT want to worship it because it caused all these problems
to begin with.

Sorry... I've a headache and they always turn me into Negative Nancy's.

The Creator is not irreducibly complex the creator is extremely simple, just one particle, but that particle can move infinately fast, thus being
everywhere at once. Also, as the creator is infinite, the creator ( All That Is) has always existed. As the infinite contains everything there is,
there can be nothing outside of the infinite threfore there can be no before or after the infinite. Just an opinion :p. Not sure how scientific you
can call the source > www.Bashar.org, but it's the most convincing theory iv'e ever heard ^^

I think we aren't equipped as human beings to attempt to classify or undertand the meaning of life, and where it came from.

That is not our purpose. Sure we are sentient beings and of course we will ask the question of why are we? And who are we?

However, you do not possess the mental capacity nore the physical capacity to examine and interpret such questions. Doing so is pretty foolish.

What do I believe? I believe that at one point or another, we are all gods in our own way. Is there some sort of higher power in existance? Logic
would have me assume yes, since I can't explain alot of the things that happen.

Do I KNOW there is creator, no, because I don't know anything that I haven't experienced, and those experiences could be the result of some chemical
reaction in my brain. I would like to think they aren't, but I don't have the luxury of knowing for sure.

In a thousand years I think we will laugh at attempting to answer these questions. It's not something that can be compared to "the earth is flat"
simply because we can see that it clearly isn't. We cannot "see" a creator, nor life happening on such a small scale.

Furthermore, I think that in order to understand a creator, you would need to understand all of it's creations before hand. Since we have yet to do
that, I find it a bit arrogant that we attempt to figure out why "God" is and what his purpose is for us, regardless of religious dogma and
archeological findings.

I don't understand how most people can't realize that religion and science are not contradictory and actually complement each other in a way.

Evolution and Creationism fit pretty well together in my opinion and Darwin would agree. Evolution is just a mechanism. There must be something beyond
the mechanism that make it or made it start working. Why? Because if we are undertaking a dualistic view of the world everything depends on something
else to exist. Now one may say that the Creator is also part of everything and thus also needs to depend on something to exist and that this logic
fails to explain anything. But what if I told you that the creator is in fact nothing? Nothing does not mean non-existent, it only means ineffable. I
know it may be a hard concept to grasp, but if you want to discuss or understand this kind of subject you gotta dig deep into the metaphysical and not
just scratch the surface of the issue.

So let me try to explain what is everything and what is nothing. Everything is all the possibilities that our conceptual mind can grasp. Nothing is
everything that is outside of the possibilities for our conceptual mind to grasp. Now, just because something is inconceivable (but not unperceivable)
it does not mean it doesn't exist.

I can't keep on going but I think I would overload most of you with apparently nonsensical stuff so I encourage you to think for yourself and to as
questions.

We have to stop trying to debunk everything cause debunking is not smart way to learn. I propose an experiment for the debunkers of every side. Try
thinking that every single thing is true although it may not be exactly what you think it is at first glance. Nothing is really invalid, sometimes you
just have to struggle a bit to understand what is the true meaning and value of an idea or expression.

Originally posted by calstorm
one of those two things had to have always existed.

Not necessarily.

Example - if anything can have 'always existed', then everything can have 'always existed'. So there is no need for a creator
- everything just is.

To look at it the other way, where things were created - even if time runs in both (or as many as you like) directions, everything, including the
creator, still has to come into existance at some point in time. All that would mean is that it could happen out of sequence, but it still doesn't
help

But you can't have a creator that magically always existed without accepting that we don't need a creator to have magically always existed
ourselves. Either we both did, or we both didn't.

So - a third, and IMO the only sensible way to think about it, is that things do and must happen by accident. It's the only way to explain either a
creator or everything else. It doesn't matter what the probability of this is if you accept infinite dimensions/timelines/whatever - we are just on
the one where everything worked out.

And by the way, you can't debunk natural selection, nor do you need to, because it is not mutually exclusive with anything you want to believe.

We have to stop trying to debunk everything cause debunking is not smart way to learn. I propose an experiment for the debunkers of every side. Try
thinking that every single thing is true although it may not be exactly what you think it is at first glance. Nothing is really invalid, sometimes you
just have to struggle a bit to understand what is the true meaning and value of an idea or expression.

This is a very postmodernist viewpoint. I think there is a serious flaw in claiming that "nothing is really invalid". If you believe that nothing
is really invalid, then there is no way to believe in any kind of absolute truth; thus, without absolute truth you are inevitably leading a pointless
life.

It's like saying, "Believing God exists is right for me, but believing God doesn't exist is right for you. We can both have our beliefs and think
they're right." This is very tolerant but very flawed, because God cannot both exist and not exist. One negates the other.

As far as natural selection goes, it is the driving force behind evolution. As of right now, evolution is the best tool for describing our
observations. The great thing about science is that it can (no pun intended) evolve. The scientific method allows us to build better scientific
theories and continually expand our knowledge of the world around us.

I think you misunderstand my point on that quote. Its not that I'm advocating absolute relativism. I do believe in an absolute truth.

I'm not saying that God can be right for me but it can be wrong for you. Thats not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if the word
"God" is being put into play it is essentially right already. What changes and can change is the meaning of the concept or word God. So if you think
that God is a wrong, erratic and invalid concept you should reevaluate the meaning that you are giving to God instead of throwing out the entire range
of possibilities that the word offers . Do you understand what I'm saying? Nothing is to be thrown away, every concept and word is a powerful tool.
It may be that after an extensive examination of the possibilities for the utility of the tool you find that there are other tools which can be more
efficient for your purposes. But first you have to explore all the tools presented to you to realize their true potential and the significance they
play in our shared perception of the world at least.

There is no such thing as absolute thruth. Everything is subject to the human experience, you cannot say that ANYTHING is truth. We only have
educated assumptions and opinions.

~Keeper

I never said what that truth is, only that some type of truth must exist in order for life to not be meaningless. This is not necessarily my opinion,
but rather a debate in philosophy going back to Plato. It is also a very heated debate in the humanities at the present time.

irreducible complexity has been discussed on ATS in depth several times. . .

anyway there is a problem with that theory. They say the flagella on bacteria is a machine of irreducible complexity (meaning it could not work if it
lacked any part meaning it was created not evolved) this is a creationist lie. . . .

sorry to burst your bubble mate. . .

there is however a better arguement for a creator. . . . not necissarily a god but a root cause of everything. . . . its a much more scientific way to
argue it as well. It is causality. Any scientist will tell you that you cannot ignore causality. Something caused the universe. . . (god, quantum
flux, colliding brains) something caused our universe, wether it was purposeful is the true debate.

our universe is a creation causality says it has to be. Wether it was god or not is not something im prepared to argue due to lack of evidence from
either side of the argument

Seems a pretty poor argument, one part of the bactreria consisting of 10 parts has another purpose. Well how did that evolve what did just the
9 proteins do and the 8, and the single protein on its own and what about the 10 proteins plus 1, plus 2 etc all the way up to 40. He explains this
one bit spends the rest of the time making jokes about the theory and then at the end says oh and by the way all the other bits have similar roles but
were not going to go into that here youll have to trust me.. Not very scientific. Sounds like the typical ATS debunker, find a tiny flaw in the
argument, suggest that that proves the whole argument is false (which it doesn't) then attack the theory by ridiculing it and making jokes. Sounds
like the average ATS teenager trying to prove he's best by winning the argument.

im not trying to debunk anything as im not a biologist. I also didnt make any jokes or poke fun at your post. You say i seem like a typical ATS
teenager. . . . It seems to me your the one who cannot see evidence without getting your underdraws in a knot. However the biologists have pretty
well debunked it on their own. So before you go calling me typical ATS debunker please realize i have no motive to do so. As i said i believe this is
a creation.

If you cannot handle counterpoints to your argument then ATS is probably not the site for you.

I think in 20 years we will laugh at the idea of 'life happening by accident' like we laugh at the idea of the earth being flat.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by redzi0n]

I think that in 20 years we will still be laughing at people like you.

People who laugh off things that they cannot explain because their minds are too limited to understand them, things which they then describe in a more
digestible manner, nice and simple explanations, like, someone must have made it!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.